E 713 Hf 



.G65 "^EAD THIS AND PASS IT ON. 

Copy 2 «__«— _««.«^^— ^^_«_«__«__^.^««« 



RTY TRACTS NUMBER THREE 

A 
LIBERTY CATECHISM 

By 
FREDERICK W. GOOKIN 



" Our defence is in the spirit which 
prizes liberty as the heritage of all men 
in all lands, everywhere. Destroy this 
spirit and you have planted the seed 
of despotism at your own doors." 

Abraham Lincoln. 



CHICAGO: 

Published by the AMERICAN ANTI-IMPERIALIST LEAGUE 

November, i8gg 



PLATFORM OF THE 
AMERICAN ANTI-IMPERIALIST LEAGUE 

We hold that the policy known as imperialism is hostile to liberty and tends 
toward militarism, an evil from which it has been our glory to be free. We regret 
that it has become necessary in the land of Washington and Lincoln to reaffirm 
that all men, of whatever race or color, are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit 
of happiness. We maintain that governments derive their just powers from the 
consent of the governed. We insist that the subjugation of any people is "criminal 
aggression" and open disloyalty to the distinctive principles of our government. 

We earnestly condemn the policy of the present national administration in 
the Philippines. It seeks to extinguish the spirit of 1776 in those islands. V/e 
deplore the sacrifice of our soldiers and sailors, whose bravery deserves admiration 
even in an unjust w^ar. We denounce the slaughter of the Filipinos as a 
needless horror. We protest against the extension of American sovereignty by 
Spanish methods. 

We demand the immediate cessation of the war against liberty, begun by 
Spain and continued by us. We urge that Congress be promptly convenec* 
announce to the Filipinos our purpose to concede to them the independence^ 
which they have so long fought and which of right is theirs. 

The United States have always protested against the doctrine of internation^ 
law which permits the subjugation of the weak by the strong. A self-governinj 
state cannot accept sovereignty over an unwilling people. The United States^ 
cannot act upon the ancient heresy that might makes right. 

Imperialists assume that with the destruction of self-government in the 
Philippines by American hands, all opposition here will cease. This is a 
grievous error. Much as we abhor the war of "criminal aggression" in the 
Philippines, greatly as we regret that the blood of the Filipinos is on American 
hands, we more deeply resent the betrayal of American institutions at home. 
The real firing line is not in the suburbs of Manila. The foe is of our own 
household. The attempt of 1861 was to divide the country. That of 1899 is to 
destroy its fundamental principles and noblest ideals. 

Whether the ruthless slaughter of the Filipinos shall end next month or next 
year is but an incident in a contest that must go on until the declaration of 
independence and the constitution of the United States are rescued from the hands 
of their betrayers. Those who dispute about standards of value while the 
foundation of the republic is undermined will be listened to as little as those who 
would wrangle about the small economies of the household while the house is on 
fire. The training of a great people for a century, the aspiration for liberty of a vast 
immigration are forces that will hurl aside those who in the delirium of conquest 
seek to destroy the character of our institutions. 

We deny that the obligation of all citizens to support their government in times 
of grave national peril applies to the present situation. If an administration may 
with impunity ignore the issues upon which it was chosen, deliberately create a 
condition of war anywhere on the face of the globe, debauch the civil service for 
spoils to promote the adventure, organize a truth-suppressing censorship, and 
demand of all citizens a suspension of judgment and their unanimous support while 
it chooses to continue the fighting, representative government itself is imperiled. 

We propose to contribute to the defeat of any person or party that stands for 
the forcible subjugation of any people. We shall oppose for re-election all who in 
the white house or in congress betray American liberty in pursuit of un-American 
ends. We still hope that both of our great political parties will support and defend 
the declaration of independence in the closing campaign of the century. 

We hold with Abraham Lincoln, that "no man is good enough to govern 
another man without that other's consent. When the white man governs himself, 
that is self-government, but when he governs himself and also governs another man, 
that is more than self-government that is despotism." "Our reliance is in the 
love of liberty which God has planted in us. Our defense is in the spirit which 
prizes liberty as the heritage of all men in all lands. Those who deny freedom to 
others deserve it not for themselves, and under a just God cannot long retain it." 

We cordially invite the co-operation of all men and women who remain loyal 
to the declaration of independence and the constitution of the United States. 



LIBERTY TRACTS NUMBER THREE 



A 
LIBERTY CATECHISM 

By 
FREDERICK W. GOOKIN 



"Our defence is in the spirit which 
prizes liberty as the heritage of all men 
in all lands, everywhere. Destroy this 
spirit and you have planted the seed 
of despotism at your own doors." 

Abraham Lincoln. 



Second and Revised Edition 



CHICAGO: 

Published by the AMERICAN ANTI-IMPERIALIST LEAGUE 

Nove^nber, i8gg 



e1 



-^ 



6-6 



5" 



I never had a feeling politically that did not spring 
from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence. ***** Now, my friends, can this country 
be saved upon this basis? If it can, I shall consider myself 
one of the happiest men in the world if I can help to save 
it. If it cannot be saved upon that principle it will be truly 
awful. But if this country cannot be saved without giving 
up that principle, I was about to say I would rather be 
assassinated on this spot than surrender it. — Abraham 
Lincoln. From speech in Independence Hall, 1861. 

Gift 

Gen. W. Birney 
N 2 '06 






A LIBEETY CATECHISM. 



Q. What is the underlying principle upon which the government of 
the United States of America is based?. 

A. That governments derive their just powers from the consent of 
the governed. This is the foundation-stone upon which our institu- 
tions rest. To deny its applicability to all men in all lands is to repu- 
diate it altogether, to declare self-government merely an expedient 
and despotism right. There is not one great natural law of human 
rights for us alone and another law for those whom we may think not 
entitled to rank with us in the scale of civilization. 

Q. Can not the United States have "subjects?" 

A. No. Under the constitution of the United States all the people 
living within its jurisdiction must be either its citizens or aliens owing 
it no allegiance. 

Q. How about the American Indians? 

A. Except in so far as it has been justified by the necessity for self- 
defense our treatment of the Indians has been and is inconsistent 
with our institutions and the principles upon which they are founded. 
It is a blot upon our civilization and shows more clearly than any 
theoretical argument how ill-adapted a republican government is to 
rule over subject peoples. 

Q. Why cannot the United States have dependents who are not its 
citizens? 

A. It would be contrary to the constitution,* and would nullify the 
fundamental idea that all men are born equal and have an inherent 
right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In acquiring 
dependents the country must necessarily be false to its principles and 

* Our Supreme Court, the authorized interpreter of our constitution, has said : "A 
power in the general government to obtain and liold colonies and dependent territories over 
which they (the Congress) might legislate without restriction wnuld be inconsistent with 
its own existence in its present form." (Scott vs. Sanford, 19 How., 397.) 

3 



its traditions and thereby proclaim to the world that its citizens no 
longer hold these principles and traditions to be true. 

Q. Why so? 

A. Because in assuming the right to take away or to curtail the 
liberty of other people and to govern them without their consent the 
first principle of the Declaration of Independence has been violated, 
and manhood suffrage virtually declared a failure. 

Q. But may not this country govern dependent peoples better than 
they can govern themselves? 

A. Possibly but not probably. Even though we could govern a 
dependent people better than they could govern themselves, to make 
the attempt would be a monstrous wrong both to them and to 
ourselves. 

Q. Why would it be a wrong to them? 



In another case that Court has said: "The power of Congress over the territories is 
limited by the obvious purposes for which it was conferred, and those purposes are satisfied 
by measures which prepare the people of the territories to become states in the Union." 
(Murphy vs. Ramsey, 114 U. S. Rep., 15.) 

In still another case it said : " The territories acquired by Congress, ivhether by deed 
of cession from the original states, or by treaty -with a foreign country, are held with the 
object, as soon as their population and condition justify it, of being admitted into the Union 
as states, upon an equal footing with the original states in all respects." (Shively vs. 
Bowlby, 152U. S., I.) 

In still another case it said: "The constitution was made for the benefit of every 
citizen of the United States and there is no citizen, ivhatever his condition, or -wherever he 
may be -within the territory of the United States, who has not a right to its protection." 
(U. S. vs. Moore, 3 Cranch, 159.) 

And in defining the rights of the inhabitants of territories, it said : "The personal and 
civil rights of the inhabitants of the territories are secured to them, as to otiier citizens, by 
the principles of constitutional liberty, which restrain all the agencies of government, state 
and national." (Murphy vs. Ramsey, 114 U. S. Rep., 15. See also. Mormon Church vs. 
United States, 136 U. S. Rep., i.) 

The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that "all 
persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are 
citizens of the United States.". 

Chief Justice Marshall, for the entire court, defined the term "United States" as 
follows: "Does this term designate the whole or any particular portion of the .American 
empire ? Certainly this question can admit of but one answer. It is the name given to 
our great republic, which is composed of states and territories. The District of Columbia 
or the territory west of the Missouri is not less within the United States than Maryland or 
Pennsylvania." (Loughborough vs. Blake, 5 Wheaton. 137.) 

J udge Cooley, whose commentaries are universally accepted as conclusive interpretations 
of our constitutional law, summarizes the doctrine as follows: "And -when territory is 
acquired, the right to suffer states to be formed therefrom and to receive them into the Union 
must follo-w of course, not only because the constitution confers the poiverto admit ne-w states 
■without restriction, but also because it -would be inconsistent with institutions founded on 
the fundamental idea of self-government that the federal government should retain territory 
under its own imperial rule and deny the people the customary local institutions." (Cooley's 
Principles of Constitutional Law, 170.) 

4 



thp,v^'r?' 1 ^'°P^'' ^^""^ ^^ ^°^"'^"* ^"<^ inalienable right to 
their hberty-the right to live their own lives in their own way and 

thef Jhon WW? "' '' ^' ^"""'"^^ ^' '^'^ '^'''' ^"d by whom 
IJ^ 7% . "'^'' '"'^ government be good or bad does not in 
the slightest degree affect that right. It is a natural right which 
exists for the savage in the same degree as for the most enlightened 
man-the right to govern himself in his o.;ti way, and neither for his 
benefit, nor for our profit, nor for the advancement of civilization 
have we any right to interfere with its free and untrammeled exercise 
Material gam can never compensate for loss of freedom. Without 
doubt there are instances where an inferior people may seem to need 
the temporary guidance of a superior nation, and might be benefited 
by It; but the presumption is heavily against forcing them to accept 
guidance. Tyrants cannot accept this reasoning; true Americans must. 
Q. Why would it be a wrong to ourselves? 

A. Because we cannot trample on the liberty of others without 
blunting our ability to distinguish between right and wrong where 
liberty is concerned. It is incredible folly to think even for a moment 
that either by virtue of our intelligence or our numbers we are so 
superior as to be emancipated from the weaknesses of human nature. 
Are our great cities governed as they should be? Are our officials 
mcorruptible? Do our leglislators always act conscientiously, plac- 
ing what IS good for the people ahead of what might redound to their 
personal benefit? Do we as citizens always vote for the right cause 
irrespective of party bias? If these questions be answered in the 
negative, what becomes of our proud boast that the people of this 
great country can do no ^^Tong? 

Q. Are there other reasons why it would be a wrong to ourselves to 
attempt the government of an unwilling people even though it be for 
their good ? 

A. Yes. The only way in which we can govern a distant dependency 
IS by permitting the Executive to exercise powers which must ever 
be a menace to the liberty of our citizens. The danger in this may 
seem remote, but it is a short step from the deprivation of the liberty 
of some of the people to the curtailment of the liberty of all. 

Q. But surely this is taking fright at a bugaboo of the imagination. 
The danger is not one that the people of such a strong nation as the 
United States need consider? 

5 



A. The danger is not imaginary. Political, that is party, prejudice 
easily lures people into a sense of security and of acquiescence in a 
course which, under the guise of beneficence and with the noisy 
acclaim of patriotism, is nevertheless insidiously stealing away their 
liberties. How many of the American people realize that President 
McKinley is now waging a war for which he has not the sanction of 
Congress? Think of this and what it portends! How many realize 
that the people are without official information about the causes 
which led to the outbreak? And yet the Administration asks to be 
supported blindly in whatever it may do. " On the principles of this 
argument," to quote the words of Edmund Burke, " the more mischiefs 
we suffer from any administration, the more our trust in it is to be 
confirmed. Let them hut get us into a war, and then their power is 
safe, and an act of oblivion passed for all their misconduct." 

Q. But is it not the duty of the citizen to uphold the Administration 
and be loyal to it under all circumstances? 

A. The duty of the citizen is to be loyal to his country under all 
circumstanqgs and to be prepared to give his life for it if need be. 
But loyalty to an administration is an entirely different thing. The 
most unpatriotic and most disloyal thing, short of actual treason, of 
which a citizen can be guilty is to support an administration which is 
pursuing a policy that he believes to be detrimental to his country's 
welfare and fundamentally wrong. His duty under such circumstances 
is to denounce both the measures and the men, and to use all the 
lawful means at his command to bring about a change for the better. 
Is the President, who is the servant of the sovereign people, superior 
to the laws of the land and the limitations imposed by the 
constitution? Shall we as citizens permit him to create any new 
condition whatsoever and sit by in silence, abrogating our right to 
criticise his acts and to call him to account for them? No — a 
thousand times no, for that were the end of self-government. 
"Respect for the office of President may not release the humblest 
citizen from the duty^ of bringing its incumbent before the bar of 
public opinion when he transgresses." 

Q. But surely this cannot be his duty in time of war? 

A. A clear distinction should be made between a war which 
threatens the integrity of the nation and one like the present, which 
is a war of "criminal aggression," and which we can stop at any 
moment we choose. Even in time of war, however, the duty of the 

6 



citizen remains the same. The moral code for a nation is not different 
from that for an individual. For the one as for the other, to recede 
from a wrong position is honorable; to persist in maintaining it is 
dishonorable. 

Q. Why do you characterize the war in the Philippine Islands as 
" criminal aggression ? " 

A. It is a war the purpose of which is the subjugation of the people 
of those islands, or in other words, a war of "forcible annexation," 
which President McKinley has properly declared to be, by our code 
of morality, " criminal aggression." 

Q. But it is absurd to speak of "forcible annexation" in this con- 
nection. Were not the islands already annexed by purchase from 
Spain before the war with the Filipinos began? 

A. The vendor of property can convey no better title than he 
has. Spain sold the United States something she had already lost. 
At the time the treaty was negotiated the entire country of the Philip- 
pines with the exception of the city of Manila and a few ports 
occupied by Spanish garrisons was in possession of the insurgent 
Filipinos, and these places were closely invested and in imminent 
danger of falling into their hands also. We acquired no better moral 
right to the Philippine Islands by the purchase of them from Spain 
than we would have acquired to Mexico had Spain ceded that country 
to us also. Our title of sovereignty over the .Philippines is precisely 
identical with the title to rule over this country which France would 
have acquired, if, while the Revolutionary war was in progress, she 
had destroyed the British fleet in the harbor of New York ; with our 
aid had captured that city; and, being successful in European waters, 
had forced England to cede the American colonies to her on pa3rment 
of $20,000,000. It is inconceivable that the American people can 
recognize the validity of such a title. 

Q. All this is sentimental nonsense. The Filipinos might have 
achieved their independence had we kept away a little longer, but 
they did not do so ; and, as Spain had not formally surrendered, it is 
idle to argue that she was not still the sovereign of the Philippine 
Islands and had not full power to convey that sovereignty. What have 
you to say to this? 

A. If, as we believe, and as the people of the United States have 
ever strenuously asserted, governments derive all their just powers 
from the consent of the governed, sovereignty over a people cannot 

7 



be conveyed without that people's consent. And even if we were to 
admit, for the sake of argument, that the United States has a valid 
legal title to the Philippine Islands, that would not in the slightest 
degree alter the case so far as the right and the wrong of our treat- 
ment of their inhabitants is concerned. Moreover it must be borne 
constantly in mind that the forcible subjugation of these people, if 
allowed to proceed unchallenged, will establish a precedent dangerous 
to our liberty — a precedent likely to lead to other encroachments on 
liberty, the extent of which cannot be predicted. Only by "eternal 
vigilance " can liberty be preserved. We who inherit it as our politi- 
cal birthright are in danger of not appreciating how easily that birth- 
right may be stolen away. 

Q. Do you expect free American citizens to be frightened by such a 
childish scarecrow? Have you so little faith in their sound sense? 

A. Our forefathers established a government for the people by the 
people, which they tried to found upon an enduring basis. Today it 
may be questioned whether the people or the professional politicians 
are the rulers of the land. Certainly the party leaders and "bosses" 
by their control of the nominating machinery and the party organiza- 
tions, have gone far to make this a government by the politicians for 
the politicians. It is these politicians who brand as "traitors" and 
as "Little Americans" those who have the courage to protest against 
their wanton acts. And if the United States is to have colonial depen- 
dencies, unless they are placed under military rule, it is these same 
politicians who will govern them either in person or by proxy and 
doubtless plunder their people. It is they who will have additional 
and despotic powers. We must first purge our home government 
before we can expect to rule distant possessions even tolerably. 

Q. But politicians are not all corrupt or incompetent. Why should 
you assume that the President will appoint unfit men to govern the 
Philippine Islands? 

A. We do not say tha,t unfit men would necessarily be selected. We 
do, however, assert that the teaching of experience as regards other 
political appointments is such that no thinking man can reasonably 
expect that the government of the islands will be purer and more free 
from corruption than are the governments of our great cities here at 
home. There is every probability that it will be much worse. Our 
system is one of self-government. The safety of the people against 
misgovernment lies in their power to "turn the rascals out" on elec- 

8 



tion day. The people of the Philippine Islands would have no such 
power. Unless made citizens of the United States, with full rights as 
such, for them there would be merely "taxation without representation," 
a thing which our forefathers declared to be intolerable tyranny. Who 
knows what kind of men future presidents may appoint, or indeed 
what may be expected of the man who has violated his own and 
his party's solemn promises, and has debauched the civil service in 
the interest of his political hangers-on. No reliance can be placed 
on a President who keeps the people of the United States in ignorance 
of what caused the outbreak of hostilities, and, so far as he can, of 
what is going on at the seat of war. 

Q. Surely you do not question the wisdom of the censorship estab- 
lished by the commander of the American troops in the Philippines? 

A. So far as it relates to the plans of the campaign or any informa- 
tion that might aid our antagonists it is entirely justifiable as a 
military measure. So far as anything and everything else is con- 
cerned, it is an unwarrantable interference with the constitutional 
rights of the American people. 

Q. To what rights do you refer? 

A. The right of freedom of speech and the liberty of the press, 
which neither Congress nor the Executive may in any way interfere 
with or abridge. These rights are guaranteed to the people by the 
first amendment to the constitution of the United States. The 
power of voting means that the voter, as a preparation for voting, 
must have liberty to hear what is said on both sides of every question. 
In view of this right, the exclusion from the mail for the Philip- 
pines of Mr. Edward Atkinson's pamphlets is an absolutely unjustifiable 
outrage against the citizens of the United States as a whole. Even 
in time of war American soldiers are American citizens. Every citi- 
zen of the Republic has the right to express his opinion upon any 
subject, at any time, without let or hindrance. 

Q. But is it not treasonable in time of war to express opinions in 
opposition to the policy which the government is pursuing — opinions 
which may encourage the enemy or discourage our troops and inci- 
dentally result in more casualties in our army than there might be 
otherwise ? 

A. No. The constitution of the United States defines treason thus: 
"Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war 
against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or 

9 



comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testi- 
mony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in 
open court." 

Chief Justice Story in his book on the constitution says that this 
definition was made because " Free governments as well as despotic 
governments have been ready to convict, upon the most slender proof, 
some of their most distinguished and virtuous statesmen, as well as 
persons of inferior character. They h(jLve inflamed into the criminality 
of treason acts of just resistance to tyranny, and tortured a manly 
freedom of opinion into designs subversive of the government." As 
for "sedition" there is and can be no such thing in the United States. 

Q. But were not the so-called "copperheads" during the civil war 
justly regarded as traitors by the people of the North? 

A. The copperheads were justly execrated, because the nation was 
engaged in a struggle for its existence. But even in the heat of 
that bitter conflict the right to express any opinion, not excepting 
sympathy with those who were attempting to destroy the Union, was 
recognized and respected. 

Q. And why should not the Anti-Imperialists be classed with the 
copperheads and be viewed with the same opprobrium? 

A. There is no resemblance whatever between them. The copper- 
heads were disloyal to their country in speech, if not in deed, and 
were traitors at heart. They wished to break down American 
institutions, to destroy and not to uphold. They sought to give aid 
and comfort to their country's enemies in time of war. The Anti- 
Imperialists, on the contrary, are men and women who love their 
country and are so solicitous for its welfare that they cannot see its 
fundamental institutions imperiled without lifting up their voices in 
protest against a policy diametrically opposed to the underlying 
principle of democracy, nor without denouncing the men who are 
responsible for the nation's degradation, "who are betraying the 
great trust of popular government which was confided to their hands." 
The Anti-Imperialists seek only to preserve their country from the 
consequences of grievous error, and from foes at home who under 
guise of patriotism pursue their own selfish ends to the country's 
detriment. The Anti-Imperialists neither sympathize with traitors 
nor with their country's enemies at home or abroad. They are 
sincerely sorry that the lives of brave soldiers of the United States 
should be sacrificed in attempting to deprive a struggling people of 

10 



their liberty. They do not, as charged by Senator Piatt, want their 
country's arms to be defeated, nor rejoice when casualties to our 
troops are reported. What the Anti-Imperialists desire is to hold the 
United States true to the ideals of human equality and freedom; their 
aim is the preservation of government by the people. 

Q. You say the Anti- Imperialists do not sympathize with their 
country's enemies. Are not the Filipinos our enemies? 

A. No. The Filipinos are not our enemies, though we are their 
enemies. Note the distinction. Neither are they rebels, for they do 
not owe and never have owed us allegiance. They are simply a people 
who have learned the lesson we taught the world in 1776, who have 
listened to the noble and inspiring words uttered by Samuel Adams, 
Patrick Henry, George Washington, Owen Lovejoy, Abraham Lincoln, 
and others of our champions of liberty, and who are fighting for their 
freedom, for their right to govern themselves in their own way. 

Q. What do the Anti-Imperialists believe in regard to them? 

A. They believe that the people of the Philippine Islands are and of 
right ought to be free and independent. 

Q. But the Administration's design is purely one of "benevolent 
assimilation," and contemplates the establishment of a just and. humane 
government under our protection, with a prospect of self-government 
as soon as they are fit for it. Why should fault be found with such 
a beneficent program? 

A. 1. The Administration has no lawful power to prescribe any form 
of government, nor can it in the absence of legislation by Congress 
say what shall be done. 

2. The form of government outlined by the Philippine Com- 
mission during the conference with the representatives of the Fili- 
pinos in April, 1899, is open to the same objections that were urged 
against the proposition for autonomy made by Spain to Cuba, which 
the press and the people of the United States pronounced incompatible 
with liberty or even reasonable safety from tyrannous aggression. 

3. The Filipinos may be unfit for self-government, but the 
assertion that they are not fit. is a gratuitous assumption. It is the 
plea of the tyrant uttered under the dictates of supposed self-interest. 
When they have had the opportunity of trying to govern themselves 
and have failed, then, and not until then will it be time for us to pro- 
nounce them unfit. While opinions in regard to their fitness vary, 
the views of the most competent observers are uniformly favorable 

11 



to the Filipinos. Admiral Dewey is on record as saying that he 
considers them "far superior in their intelligence and more 
capable of self-government than the Cubans." These words were 
used in a telegram to the Secretary of the Navy, dated June 23, 
1898. Two months later, in a letter dated August 29, he referred 
the Department back to this expression and added, "Further inter- 
course with them has confirmed me in this opinion." The consti- 
tution under which they are now working is in itself the strongest 
kind of testimony to their ability. Mr. John Barrett, late Minister 
from the United States to Siam, and an ardent Imperialist, says that 
by the middle of October, 1898, Aguinaldo "had assembled at Malo- 
los a congress of one hundred men who would compare in behavior, 
manner, dress, and education with the average men of the better classes 
of other Asiatic nations, possibly including the Japanese. These men, 
whose sessions I repeatedly attended, conducted themselves with great 
decorum, and showed a knowledge of parliamentary law that would 
compare not unfavorably with the Japanese parliament." In the same 
month two officers of Admiral Dewey's fleet, Paymaster W. H. Wilcox 
and Cadet R. L. Sargent, made a tour of nearly six hundred miles 
through the interior of Luzon. Their report to the Navy Depart- 
ment, extracts from which were printed in the Evening Bulletin, 
Philadelphia, February 1, 1899, shows that they found everywhere 
peace and order under organized civil government. 

4. As Americans, who believe in self-government, no form of 
government in the Philippines should be acceptable to us which does 
not come from the people themselves. We should simply protect 
them from foreign interference while they work out their own prob- 
lem, or fail in so doing, should they prove incapable. 

5. Submission to arbitrary rule from without does not fit a 
people for self-government. Fitness for it has never fallen upon a 
people like manna from above. It has every\vhere been a self- 
achievement, a growth from within, not a benefaction from without. 

Q. What then do the Anti-Imperialists believe should be the policy 
of the United States in regard to the Philippines? 

A. They believe that we should turn the islands over to their 
inhabitants, help them establish a proper and responsible government 
on liberal principles, and withdraw as soon as we can with dignity 
do so, continuing only our protection against any outside interference 
with their freedom. This, it may be remarked, is far difi'erent from 
"giving the islands over to anarchy." As stated by President 

X2 



Jordan of Leland Stanford University: "It is bad statesmanship to 
make these alien people our partners; it is a crime to make them our 
slaves. If we hold their lands there is no middle course.* Only a 
moral question brings a crisis to a man or nation. In the presence 
of a crisis only righteousness is right and only justice is safe." The 
Anti-Imperialists believe also that offensive military operations 
should cease at once and that Congress should be called together 
without delay to consider the situation. 

Q. You are proceeding upon the false assumption that Aguinaldo 
and his followers represent the entire Philippine people instead of a 
small fraction only of one tribe out of the many which inhabit the 
islands. Would it not be a crime to deliver the people of the islands 
into the hands of this unscrupulous man, who, in December, 1897, 
betrayed them by accepting a bribe of $400,000 from Spain, and whose 
sole purpose in carrying on the war is "not the liberty of the Filipino 
peoples, but the continuance of his own arbitrary and despotic power?" 

A. If hostilities are suspended it will be easy to provide that the 
inhabitants of the Philippines shall all have an opportunity of choosing 
the kind of government they want. Should they prefer to set up 
two or more independent states, instead of one, that is a matter about 
which we need not concern ourselves. 

As to Aguinaldo, it is not likely that the people who are making 
such stubborn resistance to the army of the United States in the hope 
of gaining their freedom, will long submit to his rule should it prove 
oppressive. The charge that he accepted a bribe from Spain has 
been thoroughly disproved.f 

* The Supreme Court of the United States has said : " Every nation acquiring territory, 
by treaty or otherwise, must hold it subject to the constitution and laws of its own govern- 
ment." (Pollard vs. Hogan, 3 How., 312.) 

And in another case decided in 1898, defining the rights of a Chinaman born of alien 
parents, it held that : " All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to 
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they 
reside." (United States vs. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. Rep., 649, 703.) 

Under these decisions and those previously quoted, it is clear that all children born 
in annexed territory will be citizens of the United States. 

t The facts are that the $400,000 paid to Aguinaldo by the Spanish government was a 
part of the sum promised at the Treaty of Biac na Bato, in December, 1897, as a pledge for 
certain reforms, in consideration for which the insurgent leaders agreed to leave the country. 
In the memoranda on the Philippines sent to the Peace Commission, August 30, 189S, by 
our General Greene, he refers to "the very honorable position taken by Aguinaldo" in 
regard to this matter, and says: ".Aguinaldo claimed that the money was a trust fund and 
was to remain on deposit until it was seen whether the Spaniards would carry out their 
promised reforms, and if they failed to do so it was to be used to defray the expenses of a 
new insurrection. No steps have been taken to introduce the reforms, • * and 
Aguinaldo is now usin^ the money to carry on the operations of the present insurrection." 
For further and more detailed information see Senate Document No. 62, Fify-fifth Congress. 

13 



Q. But would you haul dowTi the American flag when once it has 
been hoisted over a land as a part of our country's possessions? 

A. The United States flag has always hitherto been a symbol of 
liberty. It stands, first of all, for self-government. It is a degra- 
dation to the flag when it is raised over a people who are not made 
free and to whom therefore it becomes a symbol of slavery. It is an 
honor to the flag and to the nation to remove it from any place 
where it ought not to be; and it ought not to he in anyplace where it 
does not signify freedom and self-government for all over whom it waves. 

Q. If this sentiment is right, why should not the flag be withdrawn 
from Cuba and Porto Rico as well as from the Philippines? 

A. It should, unless we are prepared to make these islands a part of 
the United States; that is, to grant their people all the rights and 
privileges of citizenship, which they on their part accept, at the same 
time freely consenting to all the duties and obligations thereby 
incurred. Notwithstanding Mr. McKinley's declaration that wherever 
the flag is raised "it stands not for despotism and oppression, but for 
liberty, opportunity and humanity," to the people of Porto Rico, Cuba, 
and the Philippines it signifies both despotism and oppression. It 
may signify ''liberty and opportunity" for Americans in those islands 
but not for their natives. It would not be liberty for them to be 
governed by us. It is not liberty for any people to be governed by 
another unless they freely consent to be so governed. 

Q. How would it benefit the Filipinos if we should grant them indepen- 
dence ? As we have no constitutional warrant for establishing a protec- 
torate over them, would it not mean that the islands would be seized by 
some European power desirous of increasing its domain in the Orient? 

A. The probability of such a seizure is pure assumption. It would 
never take place if, as is most likely, the people of the United States, 
through their representatives in Congress, can find some lawful way in 
which to give notice to the rest of the world that no other nation will 
be allowed to interfere with the independence of any people whom the 
United States has made free. But even in the event of such a seizure 
it is probable that the lot of the Filipinos would be no worse than 
under our dominion. 
Q. Why not? Do American ideals count for nothing? 

A. The American ideal is self-government. It is inconceivable that 
a succession of American "carpet-baggers," each ruling, in all 
probability not longer than four years, would govern a dependent 

14 



people more wisely and humanely than the trained officials of such 
countries as England, France or Germany? However this may be, 
we have no more right to govern the Filipinos without their consent, 
because forsooth some other nation might do so if we should not, 
than a man has to loot his neighbor's house on the theory that if he 
does not do it someone else will. 

Q. But how can we withdraw from the Philippines without 
compromising our dignity, if we do so without first chastising 
Aguinaldo and his followers into submission? Would not our with- 
drawal be a cowardly confession of impotence? 

A. Our physical courage and power are not in question: they are 
recognized the world over. But what shall be said of our moral 
courage if we dare not do what is right and just? The question of 
withdrawal presents difficulties only to those whose reasoning faculties 
are suspended by what has been called "war-drunkenness," whose 
ideas of " honor" are those of the duelist. It is all the easier because 
we were the aggressors and caused the conflict needlessly. 

Q. What evidence is there that we were the aggressors? 

A. The preponderance of testimony appears to show that the material 
facts in the case are the following: We made the Filipinos our allies. 
Through Consul-General Pratt at Singapore, Consul-General Wildman 
at Hong Kong, and others, we led them to believe that in return 
for their co-operation we would assist them in gaining their independ- 
ence. At the urgent request of Admiral Dewey, General Aguinaldo 
joined him in Hong Kong before the fleet sailed for Manila. In 
his official dispatch to the Secretary of the Navy on June 27, 1898, 
Admiral Dewey said: "Aguinaldo, insurgent leader, with thir- 
teen of his staff, arrived May 19, by permission, on the ' Nashan.' 
* * * * I have given him to understand that I consider insurgents 
as friends, being opposed to a common enemy. He has gone to 
attend a meeting of insurgent leaders for the purpose of forming a 
civil government." On July 4, 1898 General Anderson wrote to 
Aguinaldo formally soliciting his "co-operation" against the Spanish 
forces. (See Senate Document No. 62, 55th Congress, p. 390.) 
After General Otis assumed command of the United States forces 
in the Philippines, the treatment of the Filipino soldiers generally 
changed, and if the conflict was not deliberately provoked, the 
tactics adopted by the American commander in forcing the lines of 
Aguinaldo's troops were such as could scarcely fail of such a result. 
Apparently no attempt was made to conciliate the Filipinos. Instead 



we refused for months to give them any answer to their questions as 
to our plans, and both in Paris and in Washington we rejected and 
insulted their envoys. On December 21st, before the treaty had been 
ratified either by the United States or by Spain, President McKinley, 
without authority of law, and usurping power not then vested in 
him, issued a proclamation directing General Otis to take possession 
of the Islands and establish a military government therein, saying: 
"The actual occupation and administration of the entire group of the 
Philippine Islands becomes immediately necessary." At the time these 
words were uttered we were in possession of Manila, and Cavite; all 
the remainder of the country was held by the Filipinos. That the 
Filipinos should oppose the President's order is not strange, for it 
was so worded as to be tantamount to a declaration of war against 
them. Nevertheless the conflict did not begin at once, nor is it known 
what led up to it. It is known, however, that shortly before it 
began, a regiment of our troops was thrown forward in a V-shaped 
wedge in such a manner as to separate the Filipino camp into two 
parts. Communication between the two divisions of the Filipinos was 
thus interrupted. The fight began, we are told, between a sentry, 
private W. W. Grayson, of Company D, First Nebraska Volunteers, 
and a Filipino soldier who was passing by and declined to halt when 
challenged. According to Grayson's story, the man replied "halto" 
in a mocking voice, and so, says Grayson, " I thought the best thing 
was to shoot him, and fired." Which side began the conflict is not 
material. We are told that Aguinaldo promptly disavowed any respon- 
sibility for the affair and offered to move his troops to a distance and 
establish a neutral zone between the armies, thus affording an oppor- 
tunity for the peaceable adjustment of the difficulty. The reply of 
General Otis was that the fighting having begun, it must go on 
to the bitter end, unless, indeed, the Filipinos should surrender uncon- 
ditionally. 

Q. Why does not the Administration respond to the demand of the 
people of the United States for information about what led to the 
conflict with the Filipinos and publish "verbatim et literatim" the 
instructions given to General Otis? 

A. We cannot tell what reasons the Administration may have for 
keeping silence in spite of the demand, but the inevitable inference is 
that the President and his Cabinet are afraid to let the people of the 
country know the whole truth. 

Q. Have the people of the United States a right to know? 

16 



A. Yes. The people are sovereign. The President and his advisers 
are, or should be, their servants, not their masters. The rights 
of every citizen are equal to the rights of every other citizen. 
Public policy may justify withholding some information from the 
whole people for a time, but only when the interests of the people as 
a whole might suffer from its publication. Fear that knowledge of 
facts might alienate the support of a majority of the people from 
the party which happens to be in office is not a valid reason for 
concealment. As it is impossible to conceive how the interests of 
the people as a whole can suffer by disclosing what is now asked, the 
Anti-Imperialists challenge the Administration to proclaim the facts 
without diminution or enlargement. 

Q. If this challenge is not accepted, what then? 

A. The people will know that the Administration does not dare to 
let them know all the facts. 

Q. If the facts were made known you would find some way to belie 
them. However, the Filipinos will soon be forced to submit. That 
will settle the whole question, will it not? 

A. No; most assuredly it will not. It will not even settle the ques- 
tion what is to be done with the unfortunate Filipinos in the immedi- 
ate future; and the greater question of right and wrong will still 
remain and will be no less a burning question then than it is today. 
The conquest of these people will intensify rather than remove the 
menace to free government at home which, as has already been 
pointed out, Imperial Democracy necessarily involves, 

Q. You are wasting your sympathy. Can you deny that the people 
of the English colonies are much better off than when they governed 
themselves? 

A. We do not deny it, though for the most part they were never 
self-governing peoples in the democratic sense, and the case of 
England and her dependencies furnishes no parallel for us. And we 
do not deny that the Filipinos would most likely be better off under 
American rule than they were under Spanish dominion. Even great 
wrongs may be followed by some good results. The serious question 
for the people of this country to consider is what effect the Imperial 
policy will have upon ourselves if we permit it to be established. The 
welfare" of the Filipinos is but an incident in the proposed departure 
from fundamental American principles. 

17 



Q. The serious question to my mind is whether we shall throw away 
a golden opportunity. Do not the Philippine Islands promise a rich 
harvest for the people of the United States which should be realized 
at all hazards? 

A. The greater the probable harvest the greater the crime of wrest- 
ing the islands from their rightful owners. But there will be no 
harvest for the people of the United States. A handful of them may 
amass riches through the grant of valuable concessions; the mass of 
the people will surely have to contribute through taxation to the 
maintenance of the troops necessary to reap the harvest for the few. 

Q. Well, there is some force in what you say. But surely you must 
admit that we have a duty to perform and that this duty should 
determine the destiny of the Filipinos? 

A. Yes, we have a duty to perform, a great and sacred duty, a 
duty to ourselves and to civilization — the duty of living up to our 
principles if these principles are right. It is not our duty to rob 
another people of their country nor to murder them for defending 
their liberty. The moral law is the same for nations as for individuals. 

Q. Well, never mind that point. Really, you know we are not so 
very far apart in our views, except as to what should be done. I 
disapproved at first of the idea of taking the Philippines, but now 
that we have taken the islands, how can we let them go? If we do 
so, will it not stultify us in the eyes of the world, and lead to the 
downfall of the Republican party? 

A. The way to let go of the Philippines has already been pointed 
out. If for any reason it should prove impracticable, then some 
other way can be found. There are no difficulties which will not 
disappear when once we determine to be rid of the useless and 
dangerous burden which the government of these islands by the 
United States necessarily involves. Half the mental effort expended 
in the vain attempt to justify our present policy would solve any 
troublesome questions which the change to an Anti-Imperial policy 
might bring up. In reality, a foolish and wicked pride of consistency 
is the sole obstacle to a speedy settlement of all difficulties. 

So far as our position in the eyes of the world is concerned, we 
are now stultifying ourselves by pursuing a course diametrically 
opposed to the principles set forth in our Declaration of Independence. 
If to be consistent, to be honorable, to be just, to be merciful, to do 
what is right, is to stultify ourselves, then in Heaven's name let us 

18 



dare to do what we ought and let the rest of the world sneer if it 
wishes. It is far more likely to sneer if we go on as we are going 
at present. The scoffers who have predicted that our "experiment" 
in self-government must sooner or later break down are already 
pointing out that we have entered upon the downward path. As to 
the probability that withdrawal from the Philippines would cause the 
Republican party to lose at the polls in 1900, nothing is more likely 
to bring that about than a continuance of the present policy of the 
Administration. 

Q. Do you expect me to listen to such irrational talk as that? Now 
that President McKinley has declared the policy of the Administration 
in regard to the Philippines, ought it not to "clear the political atmo- 
sphere" and " raise the discussion of the question to a higher plane?" 
Are you quite sure you do not misunderstand what that policy is? 

A. Mr. McKinley's words, as reported in the newspapers, are : " Peace 
first; then, with charity for all, establish a government of law and 
order, protecting life and property and occupation for the well-being 
of the people who will participate in it under the stars and stripes." 
Translated into plain English this declaration reads as follows: Sub- 
jugation first; then, "with charity for all," the establishment of a 
despotic government of military law and order, and the careful pro- 
tection of our material interests in the islands. The Filipmos, for- 
sooth, are not to have liberty, but "charity!" Out on such cant! 
Does Mr. McKinley think to hoodwink the American people with it? 
Q You are not fair to the President and put a strained con- 
struction on his words. Since the speech from which you quote was 
delivered Mr. McKinley has asserted over and over again, as he did 
in Minneapolis on October 12, that "the future of these new pos- 
sessions is in the keeping of Congress," and that the Filipinos ^vnll 
not be governed as vassals or serfs or slaves-they will be given a gov- 
ernment of liberty, regulated by law, honestly administered, without 
oppressing or exacting taxation, without tyranny, justice without 
bribery, education without distinction of social conditions, freedom of 
religious worship, and protection in life, liberty and the pursmt of 
happiness." What more could any people desire? 
A The President's words sound well until an attempt is made to 
penetrate their meaning. Read them carefully and it will be per- 
ceived that they constitute a promise of liberty with all real liberty 
left out. Moreover, if the future of these new possessions is in the 

19 



hands of Congress, by what authority does Mr. McKinley assert what 
action Congress shall take in regard to them? Be this as it may, 
the important point to be considered in connection with his profuse 
declarations that we are fighting the Filipinos in order to give them 
liberty without independence, is that it is absolutely impossible. 
There are only two ways in which Congress can grant liberty to the 
Filipinos. One is to recognize their independence; the other is to 
make them citizens of the United States, with full rights as such, 
including the right to help govern us. 

Q. But the President does not use the word "liberty" in the sense 
that you do. He means liberty regulated by laws made by us. It is 
a condition, not a theory, which confronts us, and in meeting it why 
should we be afraid of making precedents? 

A. The people of the United States should view with the gravest 
alarm any precedent which involves the slightest invasion of the great 
principle of human liberty. Such a government of dependencies 
as is proposed by the Administration cannot be lawfully undertaken 
by the people of the United States without first amending the con- 
stitution.* The constitution as it stands is the supreme law of the 
land. Neither Congress nor Mr. McKinley can lawfully override its 
provisions. Should they do so on the plea that they represent the 
sovereign people, who, by the fact of their sovereignty are superior 
to any artificial restrictions of their own creation, it would, if per- 
mitted to stand, constitute a precedent appallingly dangerous in its 
possibilities. If one extra constitutional step can be taken, why not 
many? What then would become of the charter of our liberties? 
This is a matter of far greater importance to the people of the United 
States than is the political welfare of the Filipinos. 

Q. It is plain that the real animus of your hysterical raving about 
principles and liberty is nothing more or less than blind and unreasoning 
prejudice against our noble and self-sacrificing President, and that 

* In thf case of Scott vs. Sanford (19 How.) the Supreme Court said: "It (the govern- 
ment) enters upon territory with its powers over the citizen strictly defined and limited by 
the constitution, from which it derives its own existence, and by virtue of which alone it 
continues to exist and act as a government and sovereignty. It has no power of any kind 
beyond it, and it cannot, when it enters a territory of the United States, put off its character 
and assume discretionary or despotic powers which the constitution lias denied to it. It 
cannot create for itself a new cliaracter separated from the citizens of the United States and 
the duties it owes them under the provisions of tiie constitution. The territory being part 
of the United States, the government and the citizen both enter it under the authority of the 
constitution, with their respective rights defined and marked out, and the Federal govern- 
ment can exercise no power beyond what that instrument confers, nor lawfully deny any 
right which it has reserved. 

20 



you are working to undermine his chances for re-election next year. 
Under the circumstances how can you expect good Republicans to 
pay any attention to your arguments? 

A. In reply to this charge the Anti-Imperialists wish to assert most 
positively that their only desire is to save the United States from 
the effects of Imperialism, and they are quite as willing to work 
with one party as with the other in order to accomplish that result. 
It is true that the Anti-Imperialists do not share your admiration for 
William McKinley or your confidence in him. It is you and not they 
who are blinded by prejudice. You judge Mr. McKinley by his words; 
they judge him by his acts, bearing in mind also that the chief issue 
of the campaign which resulted in his election was the reformation 
of our monetary system, and that his failure to make any visible 
effort to further that cause leaves the country still subject to all the 
dangers, disabilities and periodic financial disturbances which have 
cost our people untold millions during the last thirty-five years. It 
has been more than a suspicion for some time that Mr. McKinley 
is working more for himself and his fellow-politicians than for the 
good of the country. How else can it be explained that he has so 
often preached one thing and done the opposite; as, for instance, 
when he claimed to be a friend to civil service reform and then dealt 
it a blow which has opened the door to the worst evils of the dis- 
reputable and disgraceful spoils system? 



21 



CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES : 

The events of the last twelve months have brought us face to 
face with a grave crisis in the affairs of our beloved country. The 
time has come when we must think and act if we are to preserve and 
maintain the system of government founded by our forefathers. The 
question which each one of us must answer is : Shall we continue to 
stand upon the solid ground of the Declaration of Independence, or by 
pursuing a course diametrically opposed to its basic principle, place in 
the hands of a political " machine " power which, while it exists, must 
always be a menace to our liberty, and in the end is almost certain 
to destroy it. The decision rests with us. Let us ponder the 
question carefully, for the longer we pursue a wrong course, the 
more difficult will it be to turn back. 

Abraham Lincoln and William McKinley stand for diametrically 
opposite views of the rights of man. If we uphold McKinley we 
must declare that Lincoln was wrong and that the Republican party 
in 1861 and during the civil war was wrong in its position on the 
question of slavery. For the question of self-government or subjec- 
tion for the Filipinos is the old question of slavery placed before us 
again in another form. Nothing can be more certain than the fact 
that the Republican party of to-day is in the hands of men who by 
their Imperialistic policy are undoing much of the great work of the 
Republican party in the sixties. Surely those of you who are old 
enough to remember those memorable daj^s and who gave your strength, 
your voices, your most earnest efforts, and even, it may be, risked your 
lives for the cause of liberty and justice cannot have turned away from 
the high ideals of your youth. Will you then consent to be partners in 
the gigantic crime of forcing an heroic and liberty-loving people to 
abandon their desire for self-government? Will you who helped to free 
the black man help now to enslave the brown man who is fighting for 
his independence ? Will you help to establish a precedent which 
practically nullifies the Bill of Rights contained in the Declaration of 
Independence? Think of it, and of what it may mean for you and 
for your posterity if your decision be not for the right. As James 
Russell Lowell says: 

" Once to every man and nation, comes the moment to decide, 
In the strife of truth and falsehood, for the good or evil side." 

And let the immortal words of Abraham Lincoln ring in your ears: 
" What constitutes the bulwark of our own liberty and inde- 
pendence? It is not our frowning battlements, our bristling sea- 

22 



coasts, our army or our navy. These are not our reliances against 
danger. All of these may be turned against us without making us 
weaker for the struggle. Our reliance is in the love of liberty which 
God has planted in us. Our defence is in the spirit which prizes 
liberty as the heritage of all men in all lands, everywhere. Destroy 
this spirit and you have planted the seed of despotism at your own 
doors. Familiarize yourself with the chains of bondage and you 
prepare your own limbs to wear them. Accustomed to trample on 
the rights'of others you have lost the strength of your own inde- 
pendence and become the fit subjects of the first cunning tyrant who 
rises among you." 
And again : 

"No man is good enough to govern another man with- 
out that other's consent. When the white man governs 
himself, that is self-government: but when he governs 
himself and also governs another man, that is more than 
self-government— that is despotism. Our reliance is in 
the love of liberty which God has planted in us; our 
defence is in the spirit which prizes liberty as the heritage 
of all men, in all lands, everywhere. They who deny 
freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves, and 
under a just God cannot long retain it." 



23 



Additional copies of this tract may be had upon 
application to 

W. J. MIZE, Secretary of the American Anti-Imperialist 
League, 517 First National Bank Building, 
Chicago, or to 

ERVING WINSLOVv , Eastern Secretary, 44 Kilby St, 
Boston. 

It is requested that appHcations be accompanied by 
postage. 

All persons in sympathy with the object of the 
League are requested to record their names with one 
of the Secretaries. This does not imply any pecuniary 
obligation. Funds are desired, however, for carrying 
on the work, and the League will be glad to receive 
subscriptions of any amount, large or small 



LIBKHKY Ut- CUNUKtbb 



013 744 619 4 



:fe' 



Press of 

Kogeis & Well? 

Cliiciife'o 



